Monday, October 30. 2006
 Who knew that the Federal Reserve has programs to make it easy for illegal Mexicans to send their money back home?
Check this out: FRB Services. And the FRB's FAQs for Directo a Mexico. We are paying for this?
Saturday, October 28. 2006
Thanks to our Aliyah Diary guest author for bringing to our attention Armand Laferrere's essay The Huguenots, the Jews, and Me. Laferrere's piece explains some of the history of the growing links between Protestants and Jews in a hostile world. The book by Matthew Levitt is Hamas: Politics, Charity and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad. Levitt, now deputy assistant secretary for intelligence in the Treasury Department, is interviewed here. Levitt's "Hamas" (AZURE 26, Autumn 2006, reviewed by Leiter) and Laferrere's "The Huguenots, the Jews, and Me" are conceptually
related.
Laferrere's deeply personal essay describes a worldview established by the Reformation, refined by Calvin, and later articulated by Max Weber. This worldview, Laferrere writes persuasively, connects the French Huguenot (Calvinists) and himself to the Jews. Laferrere explains this in terms of the French Catholic persecution of the Huguenots. But Weber teaches us another perspective.
Weber, an economist and sociologist, connected the economic/social rise of capitalism (i.e. the rational group/societal pursuit of economic gain) with Calvinist revision of a religious worldview, a revision begun radically by Martin Luther in his shift from Catholicism to Protestantism, but refined by Calvin. The latter emphasized worldly gain as a sing of salvation, emphasized group/societal wealth along with individual asceticism and modesty. That is, Weber argued, Calvinist "religious" beliefs influenced the
new economic belief and actions of capitalism. In fact, Weber cites Ben Franklin's recasting of Calvinist values into very secular anodyne proverbs about work.
How is this connected to the book, "Hamas"? Levitt argues that the contemporary Western constructs of "religion," "charity," "political versus militant" wings of an organization do not hold for Hamas (nor for Hezbollah, nor for militant Islam, including the Iranian regime). Rather, there is a more seamless fabric of beliefs that cross Western boundaries such as "religion" or "politics" or "economy." A quote from Leiter's review: "...It is in this context that Levitt makes one of his most important contributions to our understanding of how terror works. Fungible funds, it turns out, are only part of the problem. The crossover between dawa and terror, he shows, extends to works of charity themselves. Ambulances are used to transport suicide bomb belts, schools are used to hide weapons, and charitable organizations are used as recruiting centers for terrorists. Hospitals are used to procure ingredients for bombs, such as the nitric acid and hydrogen sulfide used to produce nitroglycerin explosives, and hydrogen peroxide to make an explosive called tatp, which is favored by Hamas. Dawa-supported doctors use their freedom of travel privileges to smuggle suicide bombers into Israel. Likewise, libraries supported by the Hamas dawa are used for the dissemination of radical sermons glorifying death and murder, and in what is perhaps the most potent symbol of the link between dawa and terror, mosques are used for storing weapons and hosting operational meetings. In short, Hamas offers a holistic religious doctrine that treats good works toward coreligionists and terrorization of the enemy as two sides of the same coin."
Ironically, Weber makes an argument that with the rise of Protestant/capitalism, the societal (Catholic) compartmentalization of religion (otherworldliness) and secular become woven together. In fact, a change in religious worldview results in a change in secular action (in contrast to Marx's argument).
Clairvoyantly, the editor of Ha'Aretz, Carlebach wrote in 1956, shortly before his premature death, that the West did not comprehend the way of thought of Arab societies and how different is this way of thinking from the heirs of Western Enlightenment. Carlebach did not use the perhaps more precise concepts nor terms used by Weber, but he seemed to get the basic idea. And, Carlebach argued, if the West didn't get the difference in thinking about human relationships, then it didn't get the great struggle brewing between Islam and the West.
Levitt's book is a conceptual contribution to a Weberian understanding of the worldview of Hamas and related societies. To understand them better is understand the dedicated (mortal) enemies of not only the Jewish States, but also of a way of thinking and being and living together shared in the West.
Nathan Szajnberg, MD
Jerusalem
Friday, October 27. 2006
If this is what you like, vote for a Dem on November 6th: (from And Rightly So) The following is just a sampling of Nancy Pelosi’s voting record on issues that are critical to mainstream Americans. Pelosi voted: NO on the Border Security Bill
NO on making the Republican tax cuts permanent
NO on eliminating the marriage penalty
NO on eliminating the death tax
NO on creating Health Savings Accounts
NO on the Defense of Marriage Act
NO on the 1996 Welfare Reform Law (and NO on its reauthorization)
NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance
NO on banning partial-birth abortion
NO on requiring a photo I.D. to ensure only legal voters vote
NO on the Patriot Act
NO on authorizing domestic tracking of terrorists
* NO on military tribunals and new interrogation rules for terrorist detainees
Thursday, October 26. 2006
 (Image shamelessly borrowed from Beth at My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.)
Our News Junkie made a good point the other day when he mentioned distraction as the Dem election strategery. Like good attorneys, politicians can always find a case to make for themselves, regardless of its relevance - or honor, or honesty. That's their job, and that's why politicians are among the most despised professions in the US. The problem, in a mid-term election like this, is that the nation is prosperous, the economy is great, everyone has a job, the bad guys are on the defensive and leaving us alone here, the old folks have their free medicines, the Dow is up, and all is rosy in America the Beautiful. The Iraq War has turned into little more than an aggressive policing, and they may build a fence to protect us from the Mexican invaders. So clearly the Dems, with their allies in the MSM, have come up with the only logical strategy, or "theory," as we lawyers term it. This theory appears to be "Distract the moron voters:" Don't talk about the economy - talk about Mark Foley.
Don't talk about the Dow - talk about Obama (What's he ever done? You'd think
no-one has ever seen a smart black guy before. Well, I have met plenty.
Ever notice how the MSM applies the (racist, almost; condescending,
definitely) term "articulate black politician" anytime a black guy speaks
grammatical English?) Well, he loves Jesus, and God guides him, which is
just great...in a Dem.
Don't talk about illegal immigration - talk about Vietnam Iraq. It's a debacle
illegal war morass defeat whatever. Oh, and Rumsfeld is a moran.
Don't talk about jobs - talk about corruption - woops, that knife cuts both ways...
never mind. Well, how about embryonic stem cells? Yeah - let's try that. We
care about sick people, unlike those evil, cruel, heartless Repubs who want to
kill our women and children.
Don't talk about Islamic terrorism - Bush seems to have stopped it in the US, for the
moment. Talk about global cooling warming weather whatever. Yeah,
maybe Gore is onto something: Let's run against the weather! Well, but dang
- the weather has been really nice lately.
Don't talk about Iran - talk about WalMart (huh? everyone loves WalMart). Woops.
What else we got? All of the above seasoned with the usual and time-honored "Scare the blacks," "Scare the old folks", "We care," "Let the dead felons vote," "Scare the women who want abortions," "Saddam wasn't all that bad," "Time for a change," and "Promise the suckers more freebies." The MSM is clearly on board with this plan, as expected. My message to the Dems: Tell me plainly what you are FOR, and what you want TO DO, and I will decide how to vote.
 The ACORN scandal, and the Foley: the hand of the evil one seems to be behind them all! Wizbang.
More details on the Real Foley story at Gay Patriot. We looked at Soros here.
Steyn at the White House, with some stellar colleagues. Report via Powerline. The NYT is insane not to hire him - but they are insane.
This came in over the transom, but I see it referenced here: FROM A RETIRED SDPD Officer now living in Pennsylvania:
I respectfully submit the following commentary on illegal immigration for
your benefit and consideration. I was not only born and raised in
California, but was a San Diego police officer from the late 60's through
the early 90's. More specifically, I was a police supervisor from 1976 on,
and was head of the police department's anti-gang unit during the latter
70's. There is a saying, "As California goes, so goes the rest of the
country." In the matter of illegal immigration, Pennsylvania's leaders
would better serve its citizens by not following California's lead. It
would be my pleasure to discuss any of these issues with you or answer any questions you may have.
In the mid-70's the City of San Diego ordered all its police officers, me
included, to stop detaining - or even questioning - the illegal aliens we
frequently encountered in the course of our duties. Ignore the issue of
illegal immigration altogether, the directive said. The reason for this new
order? The city had come under ferocious attack for its long-standing,
reasoned policy towards illegal aliens. Along with the threat of lawsuits,
such words as "racism", "xenophobia", "bigotry" and "discrimination" were
being bandied about by shadowy, strangely-aligned illegal alien advocacy
groups from both sides of the border. The common denominator linking these leftists was their alliance with the American Civil Liberties Union. And they all kept to the same script, as they do even today; they would never acknowledge that the only issue on the table was illegal Mexican
immigration. None of the city's leaders at that time - or since then, for
that matter - had the stomach for the vitriolic, in-your-face gutter fight
these belligerents were looking for. Against all common sense, the city put
its head in the sand and capitulated to the inflammatory rhetoric of a few,
loud militants....to the detriment of its own citizens' best interests.
By the late 70's, the unabated flow of illegal aliens into San Diego
resulted in the melt down of its criminal justice system. The jails were
filled beyond capacity, and - because of an ACLU lawsuit - under a court
order to start releasing criminals, including illegal aliens, into the
streets. Prosecutors and the courts were overwhelmed, unable to keep up
with the load. Mexican street gangs comprised of illegal aliens were on the
rise in all parts of the city. The police department responded to this
crisis, in part, by instituting a policy wherein only violent offenders and
felony suspects actually went to jail. Those arrested for misdemeanor
crimes, including illegal aliens with no local address or identification,
were issued "citations" on the spot and told to appear in court at a later
time. That policy, of course, only served to exacerbate the already
sky-rocketing crime rate. And though there was indisputable proof that the root cause of the crisis was illegal immigration, none of the city's
leaders had the personal courage to actually do anything about it for fear
of being tagged "racist" or "bigot". It was around that time San Diegans
were beginning to hear those slurs from a new quarter - the Mexican
Consulate's office.
In the early 80's, San Diego taxpayers learned that Mexican children were
entering the United States daily to attend local public schools. At the end
of the school day, these children would walk across the border and return
to their homes in Mexico. Outrage over the fact California taxpayers were
paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for the public education of
foreigners was lost to those now familiar screams of "racism", "bigotry"
and...because they were children..."mean-spiritedness". The local school
boards said it wasn't their problem to address, that laws prevented them
from asking such intrusive questions as, "Who are you and where do you
live?" when enrolling students. And, they added, what harm was there really in educating those poor Mexican kids. They also said they needed a lot more tax money to hire new Spanish-speaking teachers because, inexplicably, more and more of their students didn't speak a word of English.
Continue reading "Illegal Immigration"
Wednesday, October 25. 2006
Today is the 50th Anniversary of the Hungarian Uprising against Soviet Communist oppression. Gateway has a good remembrance, with a letter.
Tuesday, October 24. 2006
 The challenge of being politically conservative is that one seeks political power to reduce, or devolve, power to the people and to their localities.
In the famous words of Bill Buckley, "The job of conservatives was to stand athwart history, yelling, stop." It seems to be almost impossible to do, practically. And in democratic systems, everything is about the politically practical. It's accidentally built into the DNA of the system, (although giant American federal bureaucracies handing out money and rules never was intended - or even envisioned -by our founders who detested the giant European bureacracies and centralized state systems, as in France). Not everyone respects that heritage of ours. This week, I heard a voter quoted on the radio "Bush is focused on Iraq, but what is he doing to take care of me?" We have all heard such statements, because that attitude is pervasive, and, I believe, enormously destructive. So how do conservatives hold on to power when the population has been trained for two or three generations of Left-tinged rule to reflexively expect "government to fix it" - whatever it may be? There is only one way: to fill the nation with vigorous, optimistic, freedom-oriented, inspiring, courageous talk about the American way of life and the opportunities available to everyone to go out there and try to build whatever life they envision. Reagan knew how to do that. Bush has not the talent, nor the taste, for dramatic rhetoric - and neither did his dad. The subject comes up because of two blog pieces over the past week addressing the "totalitarian" impulses of the Left. We have often written on that topic at Maggie's Farm. Sisu from a piece titled "Simply an affirmation of naked power": The totalitarian impulse runs deep and dark in our species. Curious how often it seems to ooze up through the cracks on the left side of the aisle. We've always distrusted the motives - beyond maintenance of raw power - of our own entrenched "progressive" Massachusetts Senator Edward Ted Kennedy.
Dr. Sanity, from a piece entitled "The Political Left and their Totalitarian Dreams": What interests me is the transformation of the Democratic Party into a tool that every major enemy of this country--from the North Vietnamese, to the Soviets, to the Syrians all the way up to the present day-- has been able to use to advance their objectives at the expense of America. As Feldman notes, this does indeed give new meaning to the term "opposition party".
It also give new clarity to one of the issues that I have talked about on this blog repeatedly, and that is the complete betrayal by the political left in this country of the values and freedoms upon which the U.S. was founded.
I do believe that the Left has totalitarian dreams - a morally lost person can decide that the ends can justify the means if he cares about the "common good," and is certain that he's right. That is referring to the Left: I do not believe that all Dems have similar dreams, but I do think that they almost always favor policies which expand the federal state and its power - always for the "common good", mind you. C.S Lewis, as quoted by Samizdata: Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
Power, unlike money, is a zero-sum game. Every incremental increase in federal governmment power and authority over our lives is at the price of a bit of individual and local power and autonomy. And with that price goes a bit of the human spirit and a bit of what makes America unique in the world.
Monday, October 23. 2006
There are two phrases which drive me nuts. One is "root causes," and the other is "The common good." Expensive consultants have advised the Dems that "the common good" might be a good theme for them. They even imagine that wrapping themselves in a virtuous, John Stuart Mill-sounding cloak could help bring Christians on board. After all, who is against "the common good"? But there are many ways of looking at the common good. I know what the Dems mean by it: they want to increase dependency on the Federal govt, and therefore on them. In fact, our Bird Dog wrote on this subject one week ago: Is a nation a family? We can expect more of this "It takes a village" stuff over the next two years, I believe. As Hillary Clinton now-famously said in 2004: "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that (tax relief) short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." From a piece by Zoll in The Christian Post (h/t, News for Christians): Ned Lamont uses it in his Connecticut Senate race. President Clinton is scheduled to speak on the idea in Washington this week. Bob Casey Jr., Pennsylvania candidate for Senate, put it in the title of his talk at The Catholic University of America — then repeated the phrase 29 times.
Ned Lamont uses it in his Connecticut Senate race. President Clinton is scheduled to speak on the idea in Washington this week. Bob Casey Jr., Pennsylvania candidate for Senate, put it in the title of his talk at The Catholic University of America — then repeated the phrase 29 times.
The whole thing here.
Nancy Pelosi said this, re the chance she will end up as Speaker (h/t, Driscoll): "The gavel of the speaker of the House is in the hands of special interests, and now it will be in the hands of America's children."
Friday, October 20. 2006
 The blogworld, and the media, are preoccupied with the elections. 90% of regular folks, however, are not.
It's just as well. There is such thing as an unwholesome preoccupation with political issues, as there can be with anything else. There is reason to believe that people are more motivated to vote against someone, than for someone. Anger and hatred are powerful human motivators, and everyone is cynical about politics and politicians except the youth - who don't know any better. So it's smears and fears season. AKA "silly season." Everybody enjoys voting in national elections, but mid-term elections tend to bring out the most engaged, and the most emotional, which brings out the lowest human impulses - and in the political world, that is lower than whale poop. Thus the theme for both parties is "crank up the emotion." In mid-terms, in which many registered voters do not even know the names of their Reps, or even their Senators, "Get out the vote" is the name of the game. Get warm bodies into the voting booth, and room-temperature bodies if that's all you can get. Is this election more important than any other? Probably not, because I do not think it will have any effect on the war against Islamofascism (Americans will never put up with dhimmitude.). Every election is important, though. Isn't it funny how, when your team wins - it's "The people have spoken," and when your team loses, it's "The people are brainwashed morons"? May the best team win. Just do me one favor: before you pull that lever, make sure you know where Nancy Pelosi stands on the issues of the day -because that is who you are voting for or against, ultimately. The Speaker, the Whip, and other leadership run the show. The Reps are just little soldiers, and if they don't play ball, they won't be able to bring the pork home for their re-election.
Wednesday, October 18. 2006
 From Basil's blog:
Mexico, which annually deports more illegal aliens than the United States does, has much to teach us about how it handles the immigration issue. Under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico. At a time when the Supreme Court and many politicians seek to bring American law in line with foreign legal norms, it’s noteworthy that nobody has argued that the U.S. look at how Mexico deals with immigration and what it might teach us about how best to solve our illegal immigration problem. Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are: - In Mexico legally;
- Have the means to sustain themselves economically;
- Not destined to be burdens on society;
- Of economic and social benefit to society;
- Of good character and have no criminal records; and
- Contributors to the general well being of the nation.
The law also ensures that: - Authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
- Foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
- Foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;
- Foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
- Foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;
- Those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.
Whole thing is here.
Tuesday, October 17. 2006
Shades of the New York Times! Taxpayer-supported BBC spending taxpayer money to cover-up report on itself. Just too funny - and too sad. Telegraph (h/t, Instap.) But what would you expect? They are better than you and me.
 We don't need no education
We dont need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers leave them kids alone
Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone!
You might be surprised to learn what the nation's preeminent college of education stands for. As FIRE notes: Teachers College’s Conceptual Framework, which represents the “philosophy for teacher education at Teachers College,” requires students to possess a “commitment to social justice.” Moreover, students are expected to recognize that “social inequalities are often produced and perpetuated through systematic discrimination and justified by societal ideology of merit, social mobility, and individual responsibility.”
Somehow, they forgot to add intelligence, ability, energy, honor, determination, persistence, and character to their list of evil excuses for discrimination by The System, not doubt for the benefit of the "ruling class." (This is like entering a time machine to 1968.) However, the point is that if you like the idea of merit, mobility, and individual responsibility, you are not cut out to be a graduate of Teacher's College. They actually assess their students on these political criteria. This is ridiculous politically-correct drivel worthy of the late 1960s - but if they really believe it, our kids are in trouble. I am so grateful that I was taught "critical thinking" in school. I learned to see through this sort of nonsense.
. Added comment from Dr. Bliss, at the editor's request: When they use the term "social justice," I get the creeps. It generally means quasi-totalitarian state control when people use it these days. But social justice can be seen in many different ways, depending on your reading of Plato, Montesquieu, Locke, Adam Smith, de Toqueville, etc; depending on your understanding of history and, perhaps most importantly, on your understanding of human nature. What is fascinating - if stereotypical - about the Teacher's College manifesto is that it is based on a vision of students - and people (except them, who get to make the rules) as victims of a "system," rather than free persons in the most free country in the world, with more abundant opportunity than has ever existed in history. Theirs is an oppressive message, designed to nurture blame, defeatism, dependency, resentment, and helplessness rather than to nurture optimistic, brave, energetic Americans with the can-do spirit. . Coment from The Barrister, of Maggie's Farm: . Ditto to the above. A couple of points: 1. This is warmed-over 60's stuff. I suspect the people who run the place are all in their 50s, and still fighting "the revolution" and seeing themselves as part of "the movement." Sheesh - you'd think they would have grown past that by now. 2. Who appointed teachers to be propagandizers? No-one would hire teachers to do that - that's the lowly, undignified job of politicians, journalists, and commentators! Don't they have to teach trig and calc and physics and chemistry and econ and music and all that? Isn't that enough to do? 3. The excuse-making angle: If kids don't learn much, it's not the teachers' fault or the schools' fault - it's the system. The system doesn't want them to succeed. Bad, bad system! The system should go sit in the corner for ten minutes. 4. But wait a minute - the public education system is already controlled by the Teacher's Unions. Woops. Oh, well, it must be the other system that wants the kids to be oppressed. Like, the kids' parents, who work and vote and pay the schools' bills and comprise the "American system"? This makes no sense. With these attitudes, it is no wonder that most Americans would quit the state schools if they had the choice to do so.
Monday, October 16. 2006
LaShawn has been hot on the Duke Phony Rape Case since the beginning. It smelled, from the beginning. But the 60 Minutes segment (which I missed - I do not watch much - or any - TV) put the nail in the coffin of this canard. We know politics: "Careers are at stake." Prosecutorial powers are terrifying when in the hands of those who seek not justice, but "success." This Nifong low-life schmuck should be disbarred by his peers, and the destruction of three young guys' lives should nag at his conscience until his death - if he has a conscience, which I doubt. I hereby pronounce the three lacrosse players as fully guilty of the crime of being adolescent white jerks. Now go in peace, with the heartfelt apologies from all of us that you got caught up in a political cesspool, and, in the future, just go to strip clubs for this kind of foolish titillating fun, where you cannot be caught up in this sort of disgusting mess. Better yet, keep looking to find a girlfriend to love and treasure, and try to find happiness. One effect of this entire story I have rarely seen mentioned: what has been the economic impact on black "sex-workers" in North Carolina? I am deeply concerned that they might be experiencing a decline in income. Perhaps some Congressman might help?
28 months for Lynn Stewart. A jury of her peers convicted her of terrorism and conspiracy. One of the co-conspirators got 24 years. I see other bloggers complaining about the lightness of her sentence. Maybe. But the point is made: We are a nation. We Americans understand that everybody screws up once in a while (which is why she does not get the death penalty as she would in many countries), but very few of us conspire with foreign enemies who desire to kill us. To me, this is not terrorism - it's treason. And treason has no place in a democracy. We always have two outlet in the USA - voting, and moving away. If you don't like the outcome of a vote, you suck it up, and if you don't like the country, you depart. This case is a good reminder that we are a nation - and that matters. It's not a joke.
In today's piece at TCS, Prof. Bainbridge put into words some things we have been thinking about lately: is it reasonable, or dangerous, or foolish to extend the family analogy, in which individuals gladly sacrifice for the whole, to a nation state? Our bias is to say "no," because it's a false analogy. From his piece: University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone recently offered 10 tenets of modern liberalism, which included the following nugget: It is liberals who maintain that a national community is like a family and that government exists in part to "promote the general welfare."
It is this communitarian aspect of modern liberalism, of course, which marks a principal difference between the modern version and classical liberalism. I suspect it is this over-broad understanding of what it means to be a community that is one of the things conservatives and libertarians steeped in the classical liberal tradition find most off-putting about modern liberalism. The great moral difficulty with communitarianism is that, if taken to extremes, it treats individuals as though they were little more than cells of a larger organism. Just as when doctors kill cells to prevent cancer from spreading, communitarianism readily justifies state intrusion into the private sphere in the name of some communal good.
Yes, the creepy concept of "the greater good" erases one's individual power and significance. And, as we say at Maggie's Farm: "Whose concept of the greater good?" What if freedom is the best route towards a greater good? Whole piece here.
Thursday, October 12. 2006
Harvard embarassed
itself last year, with
Larry Summers - to their eternal shame for caving in to the manipulative hysterics of a bunch of cranks. Now it's our turn, as more Ivy administrations prove their cultural dhimmitude and abandon the wisdom and experience of their supporters, who live in the real world. Mind you, I love these two schools, and have degrees from each of them. But you know how most donors feel: "I just dare you to give me an excuse not to give you my time and money." Let's do Dartmouth first. Joe's Dartblog provides a fine, detailed run-down of the sleazy actions of the antedeluvian administration, and their cohorts, as they seek to castrate their uppity, free-thinking, reality-oriented alumni organizations. The money involved is like a political campaign - which it is. Very disappinting to see an administration declare war against their own alumni. But the tactics will backfire, as they deserve to do. Next, let's do Columbia - the only College in the US besides the great University of Chicago which can guarantee that a graduate knows certain important things. At Columbia, the administration seems to happily cave in to the disruptors and the chronically aggrieved. It is pathetic to toss open, civil debate overboard because of noisy juvenile delinquents intimidating people with their politically-correct babble. Brownshirts. Remember courage? Come on, Pres. Bollinger. Stand for something! If Columbia stands for caving in to the most barbaric and aggressive - then at least admit it. Plenty of Columbia updates at Michelle, and more details at Allah Pundit. My opinion? Anyone who prevents the open exchange of ideas in civil debate does not belong in college. A new feature of campus Stalinism is discussed - and later mocked - on Althouse. They want UW kids to snitch about a long list of things, including "disrespect." Huh? Manners are fine, but respect is earned: I do not hand out respect like Halloween candy, either. I wonder whether they paid Kim Sung Il to write this code for them.
A Berkeley commentator tries to explain why a French friend is afraid to visit "savage America," and provides a glimpse of the distortions, lies, and fear-mongering which substitute for thinking in the current American Left. One quote: The Bush Administration believes not only that the President is above the law, but also that he defines the law. That the office of the President prescribes American reality. While giving lip service to democracy, they disdain majority rule, seek to form a plutocracy. This is the savage America revered by political conservatives.
Read it all. This guy lives in a different reality from the one I live in. If I believed what he says, I'd be very upset too: these are the folks who will be puzzled if Bush doesn't stage a military coup before 2008. Image: The Feast of Attila the Hun, by Mor Than. Contrary to common impression, Attila was educated in Rome, in the court of Emperor Honorius. That education, however, never affected his imperialist, warlike nature.
Wednesday, October 11. 2006
Opie came up with this site assembled by Prof. Alan Godlas at the Univ. of Ga. Many links to many articles, from multiple perspectives, for those who are motivated to take a closer look at Islam and violence. From checking out some of the links, the site seems like a fine store of goods.
Once again: The once-venerable medical journal is at it again with their pre-American election propaganda. Rick covers it. Truly propaganda masquerading as statistics, dishonest, wrong - and shameful for a medical journal whose name still confers credibility to those unfamiliar with their political agenda.
Says Auster: This demonstrates my definition of the three types of politics. Reactionaries and traditionalists recognize a threat to their society the moment it appears. Conservatives recognize a threat to their society only after the society is half ruined. And liberals and leftists recognize a threat to their society only after the society is completely ruined, or they never recognize it at all.
Tuesday, October 10. 2006
 I am, in principle, in favor of a universal draft with service required for every young American boy and girl. I know the Armed Forces would not want all of those short-termers these days, as service has grown more technical and requires training well beyond Basic. Getting rid of the draft was an insidious, politically-motivated move by Nixon, and, as he cynically predicted, it did largely end the anti-war movement. So, although I do not have a Plan, I think it's an important concept. Service to the country used to be what all Americans (well, American guys) had in common. Now, there is nothing, other than paying taxes. This comes up because The News Junkie asked me to comment on a piece by Kim du Toit. A couple of quotes: At its most basic foundation, conscription addresses an unpleasant little fact: most people are cowards. They might be cowards on their own behalf, or because they want to protect their children from dying, but they are cowards nevertheless.
and We can dress this up with all the fine rhetoric, slogans and philosophy we choose: conscription is slavery; conscription is discriminatory; conscription is un-Constitutional, whatever. It’s all camouflage to hide the uncomfortable fact that many people consider their own lives to be more valuable than any ideal, or the needs of the community. (I don’t have a problem with people feeling that way: I just want people to be honest about it.) The most pernicious statement against conscription, however, is the famous one uttered by Robert Heinlein: “Any country that has to defend itself with forced conscripts is not worth defending.” It is depressing to think that a man who got so much right could utter such complete nonsense. The reason it’s nonsense, of course, is that (like many similar arguments) it ignores this basic facet of human nature: that many people value their own lives more than the existence of their country.
A coward? Me? Hell, yes. Read the whole thing. How can we be, as a country, comfortable and guilt-free leaving service to "others"? Freedom is not a free lunch.
|
